Zooming In: Semiotics Archives

October 08, 2005

Mimesis or Social Construction

A clear answer lies in the statement that precedes the question, namely that “representation refers to the use of language and images to create meaning about the world around us.” And in the process of creating or giving meaning we are being creative or constructing.

We make a myriad of choices each time we represent and/or interpret language and images. These choices are, by nature, subjective and although a measure of each choice can be said to be objective or denotative, a great deal of each is also connotative.

We don’t, of course, consciously consider and carefully weigh each and every choice we make. By the time we are fluent in a particular language or have learned to use a camera, for example, we would probably consider the choices we make about word/sign choice or camera angle as second nature or even somewhat random. Although, upon reflection, I think we’d all nonetheless agree that they’re still choices we make in relation to our perspective on life, both societal and individual. Even in settings where an attempt at mimesis is made there is still an aspect of social contructionism in how an individual perceives, captures and communicates their idea of reality, which would most likely have differed greatly from another’s.

Ultimately our relentless human pursuit of meaning is intrinsically linked to our continual giving of meaning. And since our giving of meaning implies choice and is dependent on our social context, it is subjective and constructionist.

~ Nanette

Posted by lcissavides at 03:16 PM | Comments (2)

October 06, 2005

Social Constructionism

I definitely feel that the social constructionist view can be backed up much more easily than mimesis. Our interpretation of everything we see is consistently based on what we are surrounded by, may that be the media, art, friends, or family. Because everyone has different family members, friends, tastes in music and so on, opinions can vary in drastic ways. People learn to perceive the world based on their individual memory, emotion, and motivation. Mimesis, though correct in the idea that imitation is involved in meaning, leaves out the important factors of interpretations of language and images.

Posted by lcisowens at 07:58 PM | Comments (0)

October 05, 2005

Alfred Leslie Painting

The first significant object that stuck out to me was the crescent moon in the image of the T.V. When I thought to analyze the meaning of the moon, the phrase "many moons ago" came to mind. The waxing of waning of the moon is a metaphor for the passing of time. Noticing the 1970s/1980s looking objects (shoes, phone, T.V., etc.), I realized that these objects stood for a certain era that is to be interpreted as completely out-dated, though it was only 30 years ago.

I think the broom without the handle, a bit more in the background than the rest of the objects, is metonymy, representing a loss of control; a loss of control over how the world changes as out-dated objects crowd our memory. The handleless broom is a hint that though the scene is cluttered and there seems to be no way to clean up. The panel being opened on the T.V. shows the ability for humans to change the way they live life, however because this painting is “still life” of seemingly meaningless objects no action is taking place.

-Emmy O

Posted by lcisowens at 12:58 AM | Comments (0)

Alfred Leslie Painting

-Emmy O

Posted by lcisowens at 12:58 AM | Comments (0)

October 01, 2005

Social Construction vs. Mimesis

This quotation is very interesting and intriguing. I never really thought about the world in this way and it’s definitely an interesting new perspective. I think that I agree with social construction view as opposed to mimesis. I think that so much of what we see and hear from every source in the world impacts how we interpret things. Reading the newspaper, watching TV, talking to friends, listening to music all impact what we think and how we perceive the world. Therefore our world is shaped by our experiences and since everyone experiences a different combination of things, people perceive the world differently. Mimesis, on the other hand, doesn’t take into account the way that culture shapes people and affects the way people see things.

-Jessica F.

Posted by lcisfaria at 08:24 PM | Comments (0)

September 30, 2005

Alfred Leslie Painting

Having read the other blogs I will leave out what I could say about denotation in particular and will endeavor to look for meaning not already mentioned.

Leslie’s work is a still life. In other words it’s an arrangement of everyday objects to which the artist wishes to draw our attention and have us view in a different light. The objects are all, I believe, from the same time period and so I don’t believe that there’s nothing unusual in that sense about them. I think the meaning lies in their mundaness.

I agree with previous bloggers that the artist is saying something about our everyday lives. Further I believe Leslie is speaking about the social constructs or realities we develop because the only “natural” thing in the painting is the moonlit scene. And, even so, it is on a television.

I am interested by the little flap that’s open on the television. These are the tuning knobs (I’m giving my age away) and it seems that someone has just changed or seeks to change the channel. I believe this alludes to a searching for what is real or natural despite how advanced and helpful our inventions and technology are. And even in that I think the artist is saying something about the fact that we seek the natural via technology.

I will stop with that point so others can make additional “new” comments. And a hint - the copy on page 88 of the textbook is much easier to see than the one on the blog.

~ Nanette Savides

Posted by lcissavides at 09:35 AM | Comments (2)

September 29, 2005

Semiotic Analysis of Painting

The television set in this painting is very old fashioned, perhaps around the time frame of the 50's. The shoes also seem old and practically unused, almost forgotten altogether. The black telephone is very old fashioned as well, because it has a dial in which you have to spin it so that it will coordinate with the correct number. There is also a dust broom in the corner, which looks as though it has been used for cleaning. The chair is just pretty much propped against the old television set, while the plate is just perfectly placed on top of it. The objects appear to be inatimate, which gives the painting its stillness. Every one of the objects in this painting seems to have a particular place and purpose. Also in the reflection of the television set, their appears to be a moonlight beach with the sun having been set on the horizon.

I think that this painting is a metaphor for the average everyday life of a person. The different shoes are metaphors for work and play. The blue ones represent work and coming home after a long day. This is why those shoes are on the floor, because they are being discarded. The broom is there to symbolize work as well. The other red sneakers represent play and relaxation, which is why they are represented on the top of the television, along with the chair. The telephone and plate are also metaphoric of rest. All of this images form one continuous flow from left to right (top to bottom), except for the shoes and broom which are further away on the floor. The moonlit beach is a metonymy for relaxation, and an escape from the everyday life. All of these objects are illuminated by light, which means that they are just an idea, while the darkness in the background is closed around these objects.

I think that the painter is trying to say that relaxation is an escape from reality and the contemporary world. Sometimes people need to let go of work and preocupations and focus on something that calms them. This is the metonymy of the beach, because everyone regardless of what culture their from, knows that the beach is one of the ultimate ideas of relaxation or an escape from work and stress. This painting shows that we should all have some kind of imagination, becasue imagining is the ultimate escape.

I really enjoyed this painting.

--Yasmin

Posted by lcisperez at 06:21 PM | Comments (2)

mimesis or social construction

I think that the wolrd around us is created by mimesis in a lot of ways. We use our language, our sights, what we know about the world, what surrounds us, etc. to create our own world. But we don't create this language, these ideas, sights, surroundings ourselves. Society and people from generations ago create this and we are merely imitating them. As others have mentioned, the items that are stereotypical of people with money (such as purses, clothes, cars, watches, jewerly) are imitated by people everyday. We need to have this certain car because so and so has it, or we need to have these clothes because it is what's in style. This is how we create ourselves, by imitation. I'm not saying that everyone imitates one thing and everyone is the same person. There are so many things to imitate in the world, it could be one person imitating a certain thing, or it could be 500,000 people. Everyone wants to fit in to something and I think to do this you need to imitate ways that you agree with and like and go from there.

It's not just clothes or items that can be imitated. There are also words and signs as well. I know many people that in their group of friends have certain words that are used so often and that is apart of who they are. They might have heard this wrod from a celebrity or an older brother or sister and now they are imitating it.

Posted by lcisnelson at 03:54 PM | Comments (1)

Definetely Social Construction

I think that we definetely utilize social construction rather than mimesis. I think that it would be difficult for anything to be straightforward mimesis. Mimesis implies that the world is represented exactly as it is. Even this statement does not make sense, for the world is seen differently by everyone. For example, as it was acknowledged in Chapter 1 of Practices of Looking, even a photograph is subjective to the photographer's point of view. Of course, there is a standard way to take a photograph (with the object centered in the middle of the photo), yet everyone sees something and tries to capture that something differently. When I was thinking of what I wanted to write in this response, I thought of Annie Dillard's essay, "Seeing" came to mind. In this essay Dillard spoke of so many apects of sight, of seeing what others cannot see, and told many anecodotes about blind individuals who were able to regain their sight. She stressed the fact that we all see what we want to see and all see what we search for.

Thus, I think mimesis, although not totally dismissable, is a concept that does not have much validity. In my psychology class last year, we discussed what is really in our world versus what we see. We talked alot about the possibility of the fact that mentally ill patients who "see things" that are not there may be seeing the real world while those who are presumed to have well-functioning brains may not. This idea is certainly far-fetched and difficult to grasp, but it is interesting to think about. What is our world really? Is what we see truly what is there? It is for this reason that I believe in social construction.

Another reason that I believe social construction is more prevalent than mimesis is because we base so much of our world and our thoughts on other people's perceptions of things. We base judgement on a potential love interest, for example, on a picture that we see online. We base our view of a foreign country, for example, on the verbal description that someone else gives. For this reason, our representation of the world is based upon layers and layers of social construction.

I hope that I didn't contrdict myself too much in this essay. I had alot to get out and I tried really hard to organize it, but I do not know how well it worked out. Let me know if you have any suggestions!

Posted by lciscotis at 03:27 PM | Comments (0)

Definetely Social Construction

Posted by lciscotis at 03:27 PM | Comments (0)

Alfred Leslie Painting

Denotation: There is an old TV in the middle of the painting. On that TV, there is red pair of sneakers, a phone, a piece of white paper, and some uncertain object next to it. In the left corner of the painting, there is a broken wooden broom, blue pair of women’s shoes. On the other side, there is a yellow chair that folds in, right next to the TV. All of the objects seem to be directing at sideways. An image of night-dawn scene is shown on the screen. In that scene, there is a moon in the dark night’s sky, and at the same time the rising sun that spreads orange yellow rays across what appears to be the land, earth, or ground.

Connotation: All of the objects and materials in the painting represent its owner(s). While looking at the shoes, the TV, or the wooden broom, one would immediately suspect that the time frame is not in present-day but sometime in the past. The location of yellow chair is uncommon. It is not in front of the TV but next to it. Therefore, it suggests an idea of its owners not using the TV as entertaining tool. Also, the chair looks as if it is a children’s chair since it is smaller compared to the TV. Also there is a sense of mystery since the room is dark in the back ground. What if the TV doesn’t work? What if the image on it is a painting just put into it? It seems that the painting is so much centered on the TV that I keep trying to make meanings concerned with the TV. When I look around the room in the painting, I feel disorganization and awkard, but if I look at the image on the TV screen, it provides me with relaxation and appreciation for the nature's beauty.

Posted by lcisbold at 02:58 PM | Comments (1)

Metaphor vs. Metonymy

If you revisit the chapter on metonymy, on the very last page is a chart comparing metaphor to metonymy. It also reminds us that an image or an object can function as both!

Have fun!

Posted by lcisEllen at 02:51 PM | Comments (0)

Semiotic Analysis of Alfred Leslie Painting

This picture seems very simple at first glance, but after it is studied a bit,it seems more complex. The denotative aspects of this painting are, first off, the big brown box in the middle of the picture. This box is a television, and it shows, on the screen, a nightime scene. The person viewing the picture knows this because we use our previous knowledge to help us view the painting. We know that a small sliver of yellow against a dark background is the moon, and we know that the background with streaks of gray, blue, and purple is the sky. We also know that the yellow, orange, and red slice at the bottom of the painting is the sun rising. We recognize this based on our prior knowledge. The scene around the television is even more intriguing. On top of the television rests a plate, an old pair of sneakers, and an old-fashioned telephone. Next to the television is a yellow chair, and on the other side a pair of blue sandals and a broom. All of these objects we are able to identify because we match their shape, color, and other attributes to those we know to be true of certain objects.

The connotative part of the painting is much more interesting. It asks us to study more than the simple identity of these objects, but to decipher what they mean. For me, this picutre connotes a family, always busy, always on the move. The placement of objects act as a metaphor in this photo, for their random placement and use in this photo signifies that the same is true of the family. The apparent dishelvement of the objects is also a testament to the same thing. The sneakers appear less vibrant than they probably did orginally, while the chair has a grayish covering, meaning that it has been used again and again. The chair does not seem like one that would be found in this type of room, we would probably expect to see a big, comfy armchair, yet the existence of this chair attests to the frantic nature of the family's life. The metonymy in this photo is the scene on the TV, which in my mind stands for things that are always changing, never static. Just like the life of the family, where a new day begins practically before the previous one ends. I think that this picture could have been interepreted many ways, yet this is the one that was most prominent for me.

--Brenna DeCotis

Posted by lciscotis at 02:12 PM | Comments (3)

Picture Analysis

The telvision is the centerpiece of this entire picture, yet it does not seem to be the center of the lives or life that owns it. The picture displays metonymy by dipicting the life that does own the technology, maybe this person or people are older. The bright blue gelly sandals and the red shoes against the dark background also seem to show metonymy, indicating that children are around or maybe grandchildren. A stark contrast is seen between these two objects, displaying the old and the new. The televison scene is a representation of peace (a metaphor) amoung the chaotic world. When one sits down to watch something, all other problems are left behind. Although the television is cluttered with objects everywhere, acting almost like a shelf, I can't help but noticing that no where is the television screen covered, indicating that the television has some value in the household still. The chair next to the television is highlighted by the light streaming in from some source. For some reason, this chair is added to the picture; potentially to represent relaxation which comes with the televsion, or something unknown to me. -Christina

Posted by lcisgancarz at 01:42 PM | Comments (1)

Alfred Leslie Painting

In a short paragraph or two, approach this painting through a semiotic lens. What is it signifying and how do you know this? Is metaphor used? Metonymy? What do you think the painter is trying to say?

Have fun.

Posted by lcisEllen at 11:08 AM | Comments (0)

September 28, 2005

Mimesis vs. Social Construction

If we represented the material world simply through mirroring it, mimesis, then nothing in this world would have any meaning because we would not be adhering our cultural identities to the world. Art can be viewed as only the subject it is depicting but generally it is not because as the viewer we perceive it with knowledge and experience from our societies and cultures and we also try to view it as the artist wants us to view it and to see the deeper meaning behind the canvas or stone. Our cultures determine how we view the material world as social constructionism argues. This post brings to mind the art class I am currently taking, Museum Art. In the second chapter of my textbook, there is the painting The Portrait of Giovanni, Arnolfini and His Wife Giovanna Cenami. The Arnolfini Marriage by the Dutch artist Jan van Eyck from 1434. This painting depicts a man and a woman standing very prim and proper in a richly adorned bedroom, hands outreached and barely touching, and there is a small dog on the floor between them. Now if I were looking at this painting from a mimesis standpoint, I would see it literally: as a man and a woman about to be married or already married. However, the book explains the cultural significance of the painting and that the painting was not merely created to show a married couple. For example, the groom has his shoes removed which, according to the book, is a reference to God's commandment to Moses to take off his shoes when standing on holy ground and the dog is associated with faithfulness and marital fidelity. I found it particularily interesting that in Arabic culture dogs are traditionally viewed as dirty and degrading which affirms we view the world through social constructionalist concepts rather than mimesis. To me, mimesis sounds entirely too objective. We use our past experiences and culture to formulate judgements everyday on people, places, objects. We put meaning to everything we see from our social and cultural backgrounds.

Posted by lcisfreya at 10:18 PM | Comments (0)

Semiotics... I Say Social Construction!

I believe that each of our own worlds is constructed by us. We, ourselves, see what we see. What we see is what we see, what it means is what it means to us. Our culture and society greatly impacts this. One image, such as the one of the American (?) lady and the cow, means something to me, and something to someone else. One image, one "representation", does not "represent" one thing, and that's it. It means what we take it to mean. The more we look at something, the more meaning we seem to find in it. If we just saw that photo on the cover of a newspaper on the ground as we were rushing off to class, we would see it, but it wouldn't mean much to us; whereas today, we saw it, but we examined it and looked closely at it. The longer we looked at and thought about it, the more meanings we found, which let to more possibilities and questions. There is not one meaning, and that's that. It does not work that way, as simple as that might seem to make things... It would be almost impossible to imagine; it not be life as we know it.

Not only do visual images create meaning about our own world, but so does language. And once again, it does not just show the world in one way "as it is". Language, like pictures, can be analyzed in many different ways, taken seriously, lightheartedly, or can often not even be thought about. I thought the "game of love" point was interesting; I had heard that metaphor many times, but I never really, truly, thought of it. Yet as the author raised all the points of the similarities love has to a game, and all that love being a "game" could imply, it was amazing how much there was! We make what we know of the world through what our culture is, what society we live in, what we see, what we hear, what we say, and just how much thought we give it.

P.S. Am I just out of it, or are we supposed to have a painting to look at and write a blog on? If so, WHERE is it?!?! Any guidance would be most greatly appreciated... (:

Posted by lcisthur at 10:17 PM | Comments (2)

Mimesis or Social Construction

In response to this quote I believe that society uses mimesis, or languages and images to represent the world that surrounds us. This is something that it perfectly natural, because language and images are what help us to understand the things that are in the world. This is especially true in terms of the social status of people. Social status is understood by images of clothing, food, money, and other possessions. This is type of mimesis is shown throughout the celebrity lifestyle.

People see celebrities such as Paris Hilton, Brad Pitt, and Halle Berry and these type of people become an imitation of real life. People believe that they should look like these people or want to look like them. Just seeing pictures of people who have the "perfect body" (which is a loose term) or "the look", creates people to mimic those identities. This is why there are so many cliques and groups of people who all want to be like someone or portray a certain image.

Mimesis is not only true for images that we see in society, but also words and language. Sometimes there are popular words that should be said in order for someone to fit in, or words/sayings that someone might say that will ostracize them from others. We as individuals use these images and words to construct how we see the world. Although we pretty much don't have to do it on our own, since we are constantly bombarded by media influence. However, coming up with our own ideas about the world gives us our own identities.

Posted by lcisperez at 04:41 PM | Comments (4)

Mimesis, Social Construction->Imitation

The society consists of people. Within that certain society, people have stereotypical norms and values. Different society have different means. Every individual in the society use language, images, and materials to express themselves. For example, if I walked down the Newbury St., there will be at least one Designer's apparel such as bags, purses, shoes, glasses on someone. Immeadetly after I see it, I understand from images and advertisements that I have been receiving since coming to America that those people are wealthy, or at least they are not poor. People use various materials (clothes, cars, accessories)to represent their identities. If I had same experience in Mongolia, before I got familiar with brand names, the bags from Louis Vutton wouldn't make any meaning or difference than that of purses from Mongolia.

As I was an individual in a different society, I have nearly never received those representations of high quality material objects, therefore it didn't make any sense to me. Now I wouldn't say that I am living in different world, but I am living in broader and richer world just because there are many more representations of this (American) society in my mind. The images that I see everyday are part of American culture, they imitate this society.

Posted by lcisbold at 03:51 PM | Comments (0)

Mimesis and Social Construction Ideas

We, as society, definitely represent the world around us through language and images; writing and speech. We are continuously using imitation or mimesis to portray something concrete and real. For example, I was assigned to write a short story in sophomore year. It could be written in any time period, in any place. I chose to write about my grandfather's life; some of the hardships he went through and his baseball career. I sat with him several times, or over the phone, writing everything down: where he had been, what he had seen, how he had felt. It was a truly powerful story. I completed the assignment and handed it in, only realizing the next week that I did very poorly. I had imitated his life, his past, but my writing never reflected the entire experience. I tried to reconstruct or imitate a story that couldn't be fully imitated. Documentaries are related to this representation. Directors try to "reflect the world as it is through mimesis", taking other people's actual stories and bringing them to the screen. In a sense, every movie is a copy of the orginial, which is a copy of an actor's words, which may be a copy a fight between two people years ago. Nothing seems real until one witnesses it first hand. So how can something be represented to another person who was not a witness, without the scence being imitated or replicated in some way, through the use of a movie camera, pictures, or speech? We see this representation on the news every single day, especially with the effects of Katrina on New Orleans (tapes, videos, personal accounts--everything is imitation and representation). As seen today in class, paintings are mere forms of mimesis. I cannot say that the sweater on OldNavy.com is actually there because it is not. I cannot reach out a grab it. I am only seeing little colored dots that seem to come together on the computer screen to make up a sweatshirt. All in all, our world is definitely a product of mimesis. Just pick any place, and there will be imitation.

Posted by lcisgancarz at 02:27 PM | Comments (0)

Mimesis or Social Construction

“Representation refers to the use of language and images to create meaning about the world around us. Do these systems of representation reflect the world around us, as it is, mimesis, or do we construct the world and its meaning through the systems of representation we deploy? In this Social constructionist approach we only make meaning through specific cultural contexts….Hence the material world only has meaning and only can be seen by us, through these systems of representation.”

Please comment, based on your readings of Chapter one in POL and our discussion in class....

Posted by lcisEllen at 10:40 AM | Comments (0)

September 27, 2005

Practice of Looking, Chapter 1 and Semiotics

Through images, ideologies (systems of beliefs that exist in all cultures) and important means of that culture is reflected and projected.

Film, TV, and radio are important medias that reinforce ideologies such as good and evil, love, and what is normal and what is not normal life. Sometimes, those reinforced ideologies make us question our goals of lives. For example, after I see a good movie, I do want to have a life like the characters in the movie. It is not because I am not having meaningful and interesting life, but I sometimes forget to seperate what is real and unreal. We are being continuously bombarded with images and illustrations that are sometimes unrealistic. It is important to learn how we see things and absorb what is reasonable and not.

Human minds interpret images that we see depending on historical contexts. Whether we are conscious or not, the "interpretars" use tools of semiotics. They are connotations and denotations. In the book, O.J Simpson's mug shot was taken as an example. When I first looked at the picture without reading the explanation of connotation and denotation, I did think that he was guilty. After reading the explanations, I took a look at his shot and this time, imagined it with lighter background and skin tone. If the image in my mind was the first shot that I took a look at, I would've come up with some questions: Why was his shot was taken? Was he really quilty or not? rather than making unconscious/poorly reviewed judgements so early. It is importat to notice such thinking process. I am excited and looking forward to be able to answer such tricks of one's vision/mind.

Posted by lcisbold at 07:41 PM | Comments (0)